Appendix 1 Government Architect
This meeting is part of the determination process
Meeting note taken by Johanna McGarry Date: Thursday, 7 April 2016 Time: 9:00am
Project: Barangaroo
Meeting place: Planning Assessment Commission Offices
Attendees:
Commission Members: Lynelle Briggs AO, Annabelle Pegrum AM and John Hann
Commission Secretariat: Johanna McGarry, Megan Webb and David McNamara
Department: Peter Poulet (Government Architect) and Olivia Hyde (Director of Design Excellence)
Design
Discussion about the siting of the building and whether this could have been better located within the site
The Government Architect confirmed they are not concerned that it is a larger building
Through the process, concerns were flagged and changes have since been made to the design
Design solutions should be allowed to come from the architect
Access points throughout the building are pitching to an exclusive audience
Building heights were originally intended to become bigger towards the south as you move through
Barangaroo; now proposing increasing height to the north
Scale issues of hotel building are due to location
The exterior will need a level of finesse, including in relation to glazing
View corridors
Concerns have previously been raised about the connectivity and view corridor through Hickson Park to the
foreshore
Instead of changing the design, the Applicant has pushed the solution onto the next development (Barangaroo
Central) by chamfering the building
The Barangaroo Design Advisory Panel suggested a view corridor needs to be maintained and the Department
came up with the quantum of the setback
The conflict with vehicle traffic on Barangaroo Avenue was also noted
Promenade
Concerns about the permeability of licenced areas for pedestrians, and whether these areas represented
publicly accessible space were discussed. It was noted that rules of entry are displayed in other licensed areas
within Barangaroo South. The differences between the leasing and management arrangements for licenced
areas around the Opera House were also noted
The issue of privatisation of public space needs some more detailed consideration, including clarification on the
public benefit such as whether public seating can be provided within the public walkway
Roadways
Discussion also covered the option to remove Barton Street from the planned road network, so that the park
could be made larger and increase pedestrian connectivity
Signage
Too many signs are proposed
The Government Architect noted that truly iconic buildings do not require identifying signage
Amenity
Long corridors are proposed within the hotel. It is appropriate to have windows at the end of each corridor
Apartments are large and do not comply on minimum depths from windows and as such cannot comply with
natural ventilation expectations
The wintergardens are an acceptable solution for balconies
No details have been provided on the operability of glazing and the types of glazing to be applied. Have some
concerns about the highly reflective glass which was provided in the sample
Documents : Nil
Outcomes/Agreed Actions: To provide image of license areas rules and further information regarding what would be required to make the building a landmark building.
Meeting closed at 10:00am
Department Briefing
This meeting is part of the determination process
Meeting note taken by Johanna McGarry Date: Thursday, 7 April 2016 Time: 10:00am
Project: Barangaroo
Meeting place: Planning Assessment Commission Offices
Attendees:
Commission Members: Lynelle Briggs AO, Annabelle Pegrum AM and John Hann
Commission Secretariat: Johanna McGarry and Megan Webb
Department: David Gainsford (Executive Director); Ben Lusher (Director); Matthew Rosel (Senior Planner SSD) and Sara Roach (Senior Planner MOD)
The purpose of the meeting: Briefing from the Department
History
The Department provided an overview of the site and the history of the approvals, particularly noting:
o Modification 4 introduced a hotel building over the water
o A change of Government in 2011 led to the Sussex Penn review. Some of the key findings of this review
included:
the need for an independent design panel; and
the advice that the hotel approved over the water was not good planning policy
o Public space has increased slightly under Modification 8
Barangaroo Design Advisory Panel
The Department’s Barangaroo Design Advisory Panel made 20 recommendations
There were only 4 of these recommendations that the Department did not support
The Panel did not provide detail on how to achieve the advice, instead the Department had to make its own
interpretation of the advice. For example, for the northern end of the site the objective was for visual and
pedestrian connectivity which resulted in the Department’s recommendation for the chamfering of Block 5 in
Barangaroo Central
The Department liaised with Lend Lease on a number of occasions regarding the bulk of the podium
SEPP Amendment
The Department has been concurrently progressing the amendments to the relevant State Environmental
Planning Policies (the SEPP amendment). When it exhibited MOD 8, the proposed SEPP amendment was also
exhibited
Timeline
The Department ran through the sequencing of the advice and decision making steps that the Commission
needed to make so that the process was clear to Members
The Department noted that the Built Form Principles and Urban Design Controls also require amendment, and
Lend Lease has commissioned the amendment
Parliamentary Council advice on the SEPP amendment is expected prior to the public meeting
In relation to the sequencing of the Commission’s decision making, the Department noted that the Commission
would not be able to not accept the State Significant Development application for Crown Sydney prior to
approving the Modification
Porte‐cochere
Applicant has stated that taxis will not wait here
Roads
There is a future requirement to make roads prioritise pedestrian access
Discussions with Lend Lease indicate that Barton Street will be needed during the construction phase of
Barangaroo Central but potentially not afterwards. Barton Street had not been relied upon in the traffic
modelling
Public Domain
Licensed areas of restaurants are included within the public domain calculations
Department comfortable with the public domain approach on the promenade as it is similar to the approach
taken on the western part of Barangaroo South that has already been constructed
Other
Doors will be provided on the arcades running through the Crown Sydney building
The Park would not be overshadowed during lunch hours
Wind assessment has been undertaken
Documents tabled at the meeting: iPad with shadow amination; sequence of SEPP Amendment and Determination Actions
Outcomes/Agreed Actions: Additional information to be provided regarding breakdown of open space/public domain; details surrounding Barangaroo South Design guidelines and information regarding key worker housing commitment
Meeting closed at 11:45am
Leichhardt Council Meeting
This meeting is part of the determination process
Meeting note taken by Johanna McGarry Date: Thursday, 4 February 2016 Time: 11:45am
Project: Barangaroo
Meeting place: Planning Assessment Commission Offices
Attendees:
Commission Members: Lynelle Briggs AO, Annabelle Pegrum AM and John Hann
Commission Secretariat: Johanna McGarry and Megan Webb
Leichhardt Council: Clare Harley (Director Environment and Community Management)
The purpose of the meeting to determine any outstanding concerns of Council
Overall
Council has had ongoing concerns
Social Impact Assessment
Council wanted more detail on the size and characterisation of the gaming facility and how access to the facility
was limited
Affordable Housing
Affordable housing to be provided is considered too low to meet the demand in the inner city
Council’s Draft Housing Action Plan has just been put on exhibition
Council’s affordable housing policy does not have a target but looking at an aspirational target 10‐20%
Design
Concerned about the height of the building in relation to the CBD and reversal of height taper
Concerned with such a big building being built on the waterfront
Impact on views to the city from places such as Balmain and the subsequent view corridors to the Opera House
Section 75W
Council raised concerns about whether the modification is a Section 75W, as what has been proposed is
substantially different to the ordinal concept plan
Planning creep and loss of good planning practice
Noise
Concerns about noise from construction and contamination (air borne) are expected to be managed through
conditions
Documents tabled at the meeting: NIL
Outcomes/Agreed Actions: NIL
Meeting closed at 12:00pm
City of Sydney Meeting
This meeting is part of the determination process
Meeting note taken by Johanna McGarry Date: Thursday, 4 February 2016 Time: 1:00pm
Project: Barangaroo
Meeting place: City of Sydney Offices
Attendees:
Commission Members: Lynelle Briggs AO, Annabelle Pegrum AM and John Hann
Commission Secretariat: Johanna McGarry and Megan Webb
City of Sydney Council: Graham Jahn (Director City Planning Development & Transport); Councillor John Mant and Monica Barone (CEO – partial attendance)
The purpose of the meeting to determine any outstanding concerns of Council
Process
City is currently preparing a further submission
Location
Key issue is the siting of the Crown Sydney tower
Question whether the proposed location and scale is preferable to other available areas within Barangaroo
South—namely alongside Hickson Road
Overly prominent
No good planning argument for the location of the hotel. The location of the hotel is not located in an approved
zone and is now (under Modification 8) in an area previously not intended for built form
Public Benefit
The Department’s Assessment does not address public interest sufficiently
12,000 sqm. of community space is to be provided, but there is no detailed information on what this is to be
used for
If there is a pier it should be a people’s pier and removed from the floor space to remove the uncertainty over
future land use. As currently proposed, a building on the pier could end up being a function centre (in which
case the hotel might as well have been located there)
Affordable Housing
The Casino itself demands key worker housing as it will operate 24/7
Star Casino has two 24 hour child care facilities – yet there is nothing provided under this application
Council target of 7.5% for affordable housing
Modifications
The Department previously required a water precinct and as a result perversely provided the Applicant with
higher floor space. Now the Department is saying the water precinct space can be reduced but the previously
allowed increased floor space remains
There has been no increase in public transport capacity as a result of modification, noting a metro station was
proposed for the site under previous plans as well
Do not believe the proposal can be dealt with as a modification under section 75W of the Environmental
Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Design
Will change Sydney skyline
Loss of a waterfront park and this is proposed to be replaced with a park on top of a car park. Usually smoke
stacks are required for basement carparks, which would further detract from the amenity of the park
Assessment
The Department’s assessment report lacks detailed, reasoned assessment and relies heavily on the Applicant’s
response
An inspection of the scale model in the Council’s office was undertaken, with scale models of the proposed Barangaroo
buildings included for demonstration purposes
Documents tabled at the meeting: Nil
Outcomes/Agreed Actions: written correspondence to be provided prior to the public meeting
Meeting closed at 2:20pm
Applicant – Site Visit
This site inspection is part of the determination process
Meeting note taken by Johanna McGarry Date: Thursday, 4 February 2016 Time: 3:00pm
Project: Barangaroo
Meeting place: Site – Barangaroo South
Attendees:
Commission Members: Lynelle Briggs AO, Annabelle Pegrum AM and John Hann
Commission Secretariat: Johanna McGarry and Megan Webb
Applicant
Crown: Todd Nisbet (executive Vice President – Strategy & Development); Lee Monfort (Executive Vice president – Design & Construction); Karl Bitar (Executive Vice President – Group Marketing & Brand Strategy)
Wilkson Eyre Architects: Chris Wilkinson (Director)
Barangaroo Delivery Authority: Colin Sargent (Project Director)
Lend Lease: Andrew Wilson (Managing Director, Barangaroo South); Stewart Verity (Senior Development Manager, Barangaroo South); Greg Whiteside (Development and Asset Management, Barangaroo South)
The purpose of the visit was to undertake a site inspection of the proposed development site
A site visit was undertaken across the Barangaroo site. A tour was undertaken of the already built section of Barangaroo
South. An overview of the proposed development site was viewed from level 13 of the adjoining building, currently
under construction. This was followed by a walk around the proposed development site, within Barangaroo South.
Items discussed on site
Promenade
Comparisons of promenade areas. King Street Wharf has a 10m wide promenade and 12m wide strip of
restaurants
Three zones are incorporated into the design of the promenade: a fast zone, a stroll zone and a food zone
The tightest point on the proposed promenade (Barangaroo South) is 18.5m
Same chairs and trees as already used within the existing Barangaroo promenade will continue through the
promenade for Barangaroo South
Will be a mix of restaurants
Alternate sites
Alternate sites were considered, including Blocks 4, 5 and 6, but none had the amenity, attraction and economic
returns of this location
Other
From Modification 4 there has been a 9% increase in gross floor area
Ventilation to the car park will be provided through the buildings, no ventilation will be required within Hickson
Park
Masterplan has indicated setbacks on Block 5. Barangaroo Delivery Authority supports change to Block 5
There is a budget of $9 million for the construction of a community building on the pier. Additional monies will
be raised from rentals
To access gaming you would need to have been an invited guest or a VIP
Star has 60,000 sqm. of gaming, while this proposal has 8,000 sqm.
Porte‐cochere will be mostly for hotel traffic, it is not intended to include a significant taxi stand, as taxis will not
likely be required for the Casino
At present there is a limit of RL 35 on Block 5 which will limit overshadowing to the park, notwithstanding
consideration being given to a cantilever built form adjacent to Hickson Park
Sufficient deep soil will be provided for trees within Hickson Park
Documents: Nil
Outcomes/Agreed Actions: Nil
Meeting closed at 5:45pm
This meeting is part of the determination process
Meeting note taken by Johanna McGarry Date: Friday, 8 April 2016 Time: 8.30am
Project: Barangaroo
Meeting place: Crown Offices – 201 Kent Street, Sydney
Attendees:
Commission Members: Lynelle Briggs AO, Annabelle Pegrum AM and John Hann
Commission Secretariat: Johanna McGarry
Applicant:
Crown: Todd Nisbet (executive Vice President – Strategy & Development); Lee Monfort (Executive Vice president – Design & Construction); Karl Bitar (Executive Vice President – Group Marketing & Brand Strategy); Rohan Craigie (CEO)
Wilkinson Eyre Architects: Chris Wilkinson (Director)
Barangaroo Delivery Authority: Colin Sargent (Project Director); Bob Nation (Design Consultant)
Lend Lease: Andrew Wilson (Managing Director, Barangaroo South); Stewart Verity (Senior Development Manager, Barangaroo South); Greg Whiteside (Development and Asset Management, Barangaroo South)
The purpose of the meeting to discuss the proposed applications
The first three quarters of the morning was a presentation from Lend Lease and the fourth quarter of the morning
consisted of a presentation from Crown.
Lend Lease
Public Benefit
An economic impact assessment has been undertaken by Deloitte
Predict at the peak there will be 3,200 construction jobs once the Crown Sydney development begins
construction
So far 15,000 construction workers have been inducted on to the site and there is an onsite TAFE
Hotel Location
Lend Lease won the bid for the site in 2009 with the hotel being located on the water
Public Domain
The trees and boardwalk will be the same for the whole length of the foreshore promenade
Controls within the concept plan require 50% open space. Currently have 54% open space
Pier has reduced in size in consultation with maritime authorities in regards to ferry movements
Reduction in water public space is because of the removal of the water glass feature which was removed in
order to meet the sites target of being carbon neutral
Public domain is inclusive of the licensed area. The Barangaroo Delivery Authority retains authority to remove
the licensed areas at any time
In the southern part of Barangaroo South, 11.5m of the promenade is licensed with an overall average width of
30m
In the northern part of Barangaroo South, there is a 30m wide promenade with 9m licensed area
Through discussions with the Department the promenade at its narrowest point has been increased to a
minimum of 18.5m at the pinch point to Watermans Cove
GFA Adjustments
Reduction in GFA of Block 1, Block 2 and Block 3. This was a reflection of what was actually built as concept plan
approval was just the envelope for the buildings
Buildings T3 and T2 were reduced in height as a result of discussions with City of Sydney
Gaming area is approximately 6,000 sqm. plus back of house
Permeability
Crown’s proposed building has a very permeable façade
Traffic
From MOD 4 there has been an increase in traffic movements with an increase of 30 in the AM and increase of
43 in the PM
Barton Street is not needed for a traffic volume reason but do need it while Barangaroo Central is being
constructed
Park
The brief for park was an open grassy areas with shade
Contract states that all public domain must be completed by the time the first building is ready to be occupied
Wind
Wind modelling has not included any mitigation from the proposed landscaping
Trees and awnings aid in reducing the force of the winds
Design
Podium scale is consistent with Darling Harbour height
Through the conditions, the design has broken up the facades and included a 7m gap within the façade
Modification of Barangaroo Central
Masterplan for Barangaroo Central always had a setback from the building. A condition is proposed to ensure
this is included within the overall concept plan
Barangaroo Delivery Authority are comfortable with the proposed additional 8m set back to Block 5 in
Barangaroo Central
Crown
Design
Design was intended to be sculptural and not a solid block design to mark the north‐west corner of the CDB
A mix of restaurants and cafes will be provided at ground floor level including a casual gastro pub and high price
point restaurants
All entry points have revolving doors due to wind and sustainability requirements
Very active frontage with terraces around the entire facade
In order to attract the desired VIPs a feel of hustle and bustle is needed at the ground floor levels
Architect is happy with the amendments to the podium
The design today is the same as the design that the competition was won with
Design is based on 3 petals
Stone tracery around the podium
Same reflective glass is used throughout the whole building
Rationale for the Development
Demand for luxury hotel offering in Sydney
Returns are low in building a luxury hotel. Other development is needed within the building ‐ the hotel will be
cross subsidised by the VIP gaming rooms and apartments
Sydney needs a high end tourism offering
Casino Operations
The gaming license has a restriction that states there will be no poker machines and no admission for the
general public
The gaming license is linked to the location of the site and is embedded within legislation
Gaming tax revenue is guaranteed at $1 billion over the first 15 years of operation. If there is a shortfall in this
revenue the company must pay the difference
Very sensitive to any reduction in the size of gaming area as need to optimise revenue to reach gaming tax
revenue figure
Two gaming areas, one is open and the other is for private gaming for people to attend on their own or with
small groups of people
Hotel
25 hotel super villas are located on the top floors
Required by NSW Government to have at least 325 hotel keys and provide signature restaurants
Other
Opera House views will be possible from the fifth floor of the development
A publicly accessible observational deck will be located on level 65
Documents tabled at the meeting: Nil
Outcomes/Agreed Actions: A further meeting was scheduled as the presentation was not able to be completed within the allotted time.
Meeting closed at 11:30am
Barangaroo Delivery Authority Meeting
This meeting is part of the determination process
Meeting note taken by Johanna McGarry Date: Thursday, 21 April 2016 Time: 1:30pm
Project: Barangaroo
Meeting place: Planning Assessment Commission Offices
Attendees:
Commission Members: Lynelle Briggs AO, Annabelle Pegrum AM and John Hann
Commission Secretariat: Johanna McGarry and Megan Webb
Barangaroo Delivery Authority: Colin Sargent (Project Director); Craig van der Laan (CEO); Tony Gulliver (Development Director South); David McCracken (Development Advisor)
The purpose of the meeting to discuss the proposed applications
Background
Barangaroo Delivery Authority was set up in 2009 and is the owner of the site on behalf of the Government
It is Barangaroo Delivery Authority’s responsibility to go to market with the private sector to seek responses
from developers for an outcome for the site
Barangaroo Delivery Authority entered into a development agreement with Lend Lease in 2010. Lend Lease
were given rights to develop, but do not own, the land. At the end of the process Barangaroo Delivery Authority
may nominate a 99 year lease to Lend Lease. All public land is vacated by the developer and granted to
Barangaroo Delivery Authority
The Barangaroo Delivery Authority reports directly to the Premier
Barangaroo Central
Tender document referenced 150,000 gross floor area to allow developers to explore the possibility of this gross
floor area but there is no guarantee this gross floor area will be approved
The Modification 9 plans were completed prior to the announcement of the metro station. Have no intention of
progressing this application now, it has been withdrawn
Any future Modification 9 application will be dependent on the outcome of the tender process
No modelling has been done for Barangaroo Central
Modification 4 is the only control that currently exists for Barangaroo Central
Cannot speculate on what the development of Barangaroo Central will be. Whatever is proposed will need to go
through the planning process
Any increase in height would need planning approval
Block 5
Have agreed to Barangaroo Design Advisory Panel’s recommendations by reducing Block 5
The width between porte‐cochere and Hickson Park is the equivalent width to Martin Place
An envelope showing building above the chamfer is indicative only as at this point there is no certainty about
what will be developed within Barangaroo Central
SEPP diagram is misleading as there will be a wider neck between the park and Block 5
Hickson Park
Hickson Park will provide an alternative to the very exposed open space along the foreshore
Provides for the presentation of a public park to the street
Balancing exercise for shadowing, trees and protection from the heat
Barangaroo Delivery Authority to provide further information to the Commission regarding view corridor from
Hickson Park
Road Network
Happy for Barton Road to be removed after construction
Hickson Road is important and cannot be shortened
Crown will require a turning circle for coach movements so it would be difficult to block road
During planning stages there were a number of conversations around whether Barangaroo Avenue should
support traffic or not. Road access is necessary for emergency vehicles
Barangaroo South
Water body area has been reduced, and as a result there has been an increase in useable public space
Barangaroo Delivery Authority to provide further information on the breakdown of public space across the site
Proposed community facility is to be low in height and a mixed use structure. If not, a suitable fall back option is
for use as a jetty
No building design has been made yet for the other towers in Barangaroo South. Once prepared, they will be
forwarded to the Department for assessment
Promenade
Design advisors have evaluated different shade options
Barangaroo Delivery Authority to provide further detail about design evolution of licensed areas and shading
solutions
Branding
Support the proposed branding of Crown Sydney
Skyline of Sydney changes regularly
Will not be the last tall building to be built in Sydney
Commercial building with one tenant
Signage has been designed as part of the architecture
Documents tabled at the meeting: Nil
Outcomes/Agreed Actions: Additional information to be provided
Meeting closed at 3:00pm
Applicant Meeting
This meeting is part of the determination process
Meeting note taken by Johanna McGarry Date: Thursday, 21 April 2016 Time: 8.30am
Project: Barangaroo
Meeting place: Planning Assessment Commission Offices
Attendees:
Commission Members: Lynelle Briggs AO, Annabelle Pegrum AM and John Hann
Commission Secretariat: Johanna McGarry and Megan Webb
Applicant
Crown: Todd Nisbet (executive Vice President – Strategy & Development); Lee Monfort (Executive Vice president – Design & Construction); Karl Bitar (Executive Vice President – Group Marketing & Brand Strategy); Rohan Craigie (CEO)
Barangaroo Delivery Authority: Colin Sargent (Project Director)
Lend Lease: Andrew Wilson (Managing Director, Barangaroo South); Barangaroo South); Greg Whiteside (Development and Asset Management, Barangaroo South)
The purpose of the meeting to discuss the proposed applications
This meeting was held as Crown had insufficient time to present in the previous meeting.
Podium
Crown presented imagery demonstrating the impact of reducing the podium by 20 m, including on the casino
floor space
Footprint is 6000 sqm.
Podium is 128m end to end
Introduced breaks in the podium to replicate breaks along the foreshore
View
Have held discussions with Barangaroo Delivery Authority regarding setbacks and heights in order to gain view
corridors
Crown have no agreement with Barangaroo Delivery Authority regarding restrictions on development on
neighbouring properties. Barangaroo Delivery Authority understand the concern of Crown if a building was built
which restricted views as need for the Crown Hotel to remain iconic
Crown would support changes to enhance the public realm and setting of the building, including changes which
limited development on Central
Hickson Park
Crown acknowledged that it is not within their jurisdiction to design Hickson Park however, their architect Chris
Wilkinson had provided some sketches of a design solution for the area which demonstrated a triangle piazza
between Blocks Y and 5
Traffic
RMS has indicated that the road access to the building needs to include access for coaches
Have undertaken an analysis of pedestrian and vehicular conflicts. Based on other examples in Sydney, the
proposal is at the lower end of the traffic volume spectrum
Have prioritised pedestrian movements through a selection of road treatments
To address overflow parking, Crown is working on commercial agreements to take office parking after hours, as
Crown’s peak parking demand is after 7pm
Anticipate majority of customers will have private cars or ubers and their workers would use the train
Promenade
A number of public entry points into the building at grade
Terraces do have a structural connection to the column of the building but can be detached. There is an open
air gap between façade and start of the canopy
Have solar blinds within the licensed areas
Ground floor
Will have 24 hours access to the building
Will have a view from the porte‐cochere through the building to the water
No back of house located at ground floor
Access to this area will all be at grade
Skylight in the porte‐cochere area to provide brightness
Wind
Crown building will get stack affect from wind
Use of canopies and trees to manage
Glass blades at each entry point create wind breaks and are used by the architect as a design feature
Wind assessment included an overall assessment of wind for the Barangaroo precinct
Branding
Looked at existing streetscape
Feel it’s important to show the building as a high quality tourism building
Is an elegant brand and part of a high end network of hotel and resorts
Happy to discuss a reduction of some signage but not a complete removal of branding, the Crown symbol at the
top of the building is important, elegant and consistent with the branding allowed on other buildings across the
city
Documents tabled at the meeting: Nil
Outcomes/Agreed Actions: Crown to provide copy of presentation
Meeting closed at 4:30pm
Department Second Meeting
This meeting is part of the determination process
Meeting note taken by Johanna McGarry Date: Thursday, 7 April 2016 Time: 11:30am
Project: Barangaroo
Meeting place: Planning Assessment Commission Offices
Attendees:
PAC Members: Lynelle Briggs AO, Annabelle Pegrum AM and John Hann
PAC Secretariat: Johanna McGarry and Megan Webb
Department: Ben Lusher (Director); Matthew Rosel (Senior Planner SSD) and Sara Roach (Senior Planner MOD)
The purpose of the meeting: to seek clarification from Department
Public Domain
Existing condition requires 50% of public open space
Currently 54% of the entire site is RE1
Between the existing modification approval and the proposed modification RE1 has increased marginally
1070m of licensed area is located within the promenade
Assessment
The Commission questioned the Department on the Casino legislation
Department advised that it assessed the project on the planning issues, rather than basing any consideration on
the Casino legislation
Commission
The Commission outlined some of its concerns regarding the amenity and connectivity of Hickson Park, and the
adequacy of the foreshore promenade width proposed to be provided
Barangaroo Central
The Department’s understanding is that the increase in gross floor area for Barangaroo Central was to come
from completely filling building envelopes
Bid documents for Barangaroo Central reference an agreement between Crown, Lend Lease and Barangaroo
Delivery Authority
The Department has not seen anything further than the Modification 9 application for plans regarding
Barangaroo Central
Chamfer
Commission noted it is investigating opportunities to increase the chamfer to increase view lines from Hickson
Park to the foreshore
It was acknowledged that the consequence of a greater chamfer could include some reduction in the
Government’s value capture from that part of the site, although value capture from development of other parts
of the site was being contemplated as part of this application
Options to remove Barton Street after construction works on Block 5 are finished and the use of a shared zone
along parts of Barangaroo Avenue were also noted
Promenade
The Department previously discussed extending the boardwalk with the proponents and various Government
authorities. These discussions identified a deep water berth capability at the end of the existing boardwalk in
front of Block Y. The Department agreed to provide further information on this matter, including consultation
with Roads and Maritime Services regarding potential extension of the promenade
Any amendment to the promenade into the harbour would require an amendment to SEPP maps
The Department indicated that they did not believe the pontoon was part of the current plans. Department
agreed to provide clarification on this point
Jetty
Commission raised concerns about what type of building will be built on the jetty and will it meet design
excellence expectations
Department advised a Design Competition condition is part of the recommended conditions for the concept
plan and this could be amended to include the jetty building
Commission noted concerns about potential development of a heliport, and advised that it shares those
concerns and intends to include a recommended condition within its further advice to restrict a heliport being
constructed
Documents tabled at the meeting: Nil
Outcomes/Agreed Actions: Additional information to be provided by the Department regarding the Barangaroo Central tender documents; road network; constraints of an extension to boardwalk; status of the pontoon; RE1 calculation break down; and ownership of land
Meeting closed at 12:30pm
Second Meeting with the Barangaroo Delivery Authority
This meeting is part of the determination process
Meeting note taken by Megan Webb Date: Friday, 6 May 2016 Time: 4:00pm
Project: Barangaroo
Meeting place: Planning Assessment Commission Offices
Attendees:
Commission Members: Lynelle Briggs AO, Annabelle Pegrum AM and John Hann
Commission Secretariat: Johanna McGarry and Megan Webb
Barangaroo Delivery Authority: Craig van der Laan (CEO); Bob Nation (Design Consultant ); Colin Sargent (Project Director); David McCracken (Development Advisor)
The purpose of the meeting to discuss the concerns previously raised by the Commission
Background
The Barangaroo Delivery Authority briefed the Commission on its design team and the operations of the team in
considering each element of the development of Barangaroo. Expertise from eminent landscape architects and
urbanists have contributed to the project, as required.
The evolution and history to the hotel development was discussed. The proposal to relocate the hotel from the
water to land within the northern part of Barangaroo South was initiated by the O’Farrell Government. A
rigorous site selection process was said to have been undertaken with the foreshore site selected as it would
contribute to a positive active urban domain and allow for the creation of a public space at Hickson Park. The
BDA noted the northern aspect on Barangaroo South was ideal and that the proposed Renzo Piano towers
helped to contain the space, making it a unique proposition and a positive outcome for the Barangaroo precinct
and the western edge of the city.
The western parkland on Barangaroo Central was said to occupy nearly 3 ha, terminating at the hotel.
Connectivity to Hickson Park is a fundamental consideration, and the BDA have sought to create a gateway from
Central into the unique HIckson Park space, allowing Barangaroo to deliver a range of experiences. Rather than
continuing the promenade environment Hickson Park will be protected from the weather, like a small common
it would provide a place for office workers to enjoy their lunch. It would be a grassed area with chairs and
opportunities to sit in the sun.
The 28 m width of the opening, connecting Hickson Park and the foreshore park, was said to be suitable, acting
as a throat while allowing free flow and appropriate connectivity.
The Barangaroo Delivery Authority acknowledged that the landscaping of the park will be very important,
ensuring it provides appropriate shade, species selection and possibly a piazza concept within the site. They said
that a piazza addressing the entry to the hotel and the porte‐cochere, with the park opposite, could produce a
fantastic joining of South and Central.
The Barangaroo Delivery Authority noted there were a number of other constraints that had to be considered
in finding a suitable site for the hotel, these included:
o the requirement for a 30 m wide public walkway along the foreshore;
o the diagonal boundary between Barangaroo South and Central; and
o the need to provide continuity along Barangaroo Avenue, noting it’s intended to continue through
Central to Nawi Cove.
These constraints limited the shape and footprint of the hotel site, and informed the development of the
mapping provided in the Casino Control Act 1992.
The Barangaroo Delivery Authority advised that a prominent foreshore location was needed in order to move
the hotel from the water to the land, and that one of the options initially considered was to develop the hotel
on the edge of Nawi Cove.
The Barangaroo Delivery Authority has sought to preserve the public open space and sees this proposal as an
opportunity to create a unique park.
The proposed hotel location was said to have been exhibited in September 2013, predating the amendments to
the Casino Control Act 1992 being presented to Parliament, and the Barangaroo Delivery Authority agreed to
provide some further written clarification on the sequence of events.
The proportion of public space was discussed, including how this has been adjusted over time, and noting that
future development of Barangaroo Central will include additional open space not yet included in the
calculations. The Barangaroo Delivery Authority is to provide written clarification on the quantum and
breakdown of public open space and built areas across Barangaroo.
Overshadowing
Overshadowing of Hickson Park from future development on Central Barangaroo was discussed, noting
approximately one third of the park is predicted to be overshadowed at the equinox, and two thirds at the
winter solstice. The Barangaroo Delivery Authority agreed to commit to ensuring overshadowing did not exceed
those modelled figures.
Regarding the chamfer of Block 5, the Barangaroo Delivery Authority noted that although this was a recent
change, it had envisaged a plaza outcome on the south west corner of Block 5, and this was included in its
masterplan for the development of Barangaroo Central.
Limiting the overshadowing of Hickson Park was acknowledged to have an impact on the future development
potential of Block 5.
Licenced Areas
The Commission sought clarification on the Barangaroo Delivery Authority’s design requirements for licenced
areas to be read as separate from the buildings. The BDA advised that the canopies proposed to be constructed
over the licenced areas aren’t proposed to be continuous and are appropriate, noting the drip line from the veil
of the building.
The Barangaroo Delivery Authority confirmed that there are requirements in place to ensure the licenced areas
are able to be removed from the area, should the Barangaroo Delivery Authority find this is necessary.
Other Matters
The Barangaroo Delivery Authority confirmed the agreements in place with Lend Lease and Crown require
consultation with these parties, should there be any changes to Barangaroo Central that could affect sight lines
to iconic views.
The Barangaroo Delivery Authority confirmed it does not have authority to sell any of the land at Barangaroo,
and the built areas would be leased to the occupants for up to 99 years. The public domain would remain in
public ownership.
In relation to deep water berthing, the Barangaroo Delivery Authority noted this was a recommendation from
the 2011 Sussex and Penn Review. The Barangaroo Delivery Authority understands that there is physically not
enough space for a cruise ship to berth at Barangaroo, but the space would provide for a variety of special
events, such as tall ships. The Barangaroo Delivery Authority noted any changes to the length of the foreshore
here would require consultation with other agencies, and confirmed that it did not have a preference on this
issue, except to note that it has been criticised by some who have suggested the 30 m promenade width is too
wide and becomes sterile.
Documents tabled at the meeting: Nil
Outcomes/Agreed Actions: Additional information was provided to the Commission on 16 May 2016.
Meeting closed at 4:55pm
Third Meeting with the Department of Planning and Environment
This meeting is part of the determination process
Meeting note taken by Johanna McGarry Date: Wednesday, 18 May 2016 Time: 8.30am
Project: Barangaroo
Meeting place: Planning Assessment Commission Offices
Attendees:
Commission Members: Lynelle Briggs AO, Annabelle Pegrum AM and John Hann
Commission Secretariat: Johanna McGarry ; Megan Webb; David McNamara and Robert Bisley
Department: David Gainsford (Executive Director); Ben Lusher (Director); Matthew Rosel (Senior Planner SSD) and Sara Roach (Senior Planner MOD)
The purpose of the meeting: Discussion with Department in response to the Commission’s request for additional information
Promenade
The Department advised it had spoken to BDA, RMS and Ports regarding the Commission’s question about the
possibility of extending the promenade by 9m by way of additional boardwalk into the harbour
The Department investigated previous comments, originating in the Sussex Penn Review, regarding the need to
maintain a deep water berth and any conflict with an extension of the promenade
The extension to the promenade would reduce the deep water berth by 30m
The Department advised that the deep water berth was always considered as an ancillary space for large ships
during special events, rather than to support any commercial or ongoing operations
The RMS has no in principle objection to a promenade extension; the only consideration that would need to be
made is to navigational safety
The Ports Authority supports the retention of the deep water berth however, Ports has stated that as the
boardwalk and associated public open space has already been constructed to the north of Block Y, it has no
objection to similar development in front of Block Y
The Department outlined some further solutions for amending the licensed areas to ensure it is not read as a
private space
Overshadowing
The Department confirmed that Barangaroo Delivery Authority has committed to no further overshadowing of
Hickson Park, beyond the predicted impacts of Block 5 as currently modelled
Open Space
There are sound urban design principles to support the creation of an inner city park
Block 5
The Department supports a chamfer design on Block 5 as it believes this allows for a view corridor at a human
scale
The Department noted that an unintended consequence of reducing Block 5 could be increased heights across
Barangaroo Central
Possible that a sub terrain entrance to the future metro station could be provided in the chamfer location. So
could be a heavily pedestrianised paved area
Roads
The Department confirmed Barton Street is not needed for vehicular access and will provide the Commission
with a condition to require Barton Street to be removed and returned to parkland at the end of construction
The Department outlined further advice surrounding the use of a section of Barangaroo Avenue as a shared
zone. Further work will need to be undertaken with RMS on the actual design
Heliport
The Department will provide additional conditions for the Commission relating to restricting heliports
Key Worker Housing
Issue of key worker housing was raised with the Applicant during the exhibition stage. A letter from Lend Lease
confirming the amount of key worker housing was received
The housing strategy for the Barangaroo site was lodged prior to Modification 8
The Department does not have a policy it can use to guide an amount of key worker housing
Wharf Structure
The Department will provide additional conditions to ensure design excellence is a requirement for any
structure to be built on the wharf and ensure the use is for community use
Documents tabled at the meeting: Draft Additional Information
Outcomes/Agreed Actions: Final additional information to be sent to the Commission
Meeting closed at 10:00am
Appendix 2 List of Speakers at the Public Meeting
Date & Time: Thursday, 28th of April 2016 at 11am Place: Christie Conference Centre, 3 Spring Street Sydney NSW 2000
Meeting Schedule
11 am Opening Statement from the Chair – Ms Lynelle Briggs AO
Registered Speakers:
A 30 minute lunch break will
be taken at approx. 1pm
1. Alex Greenwich MP (Member for Sydney)
2. Graham Jahn AM (City of Sydney)
3. Clr. Christine Forster
4. Hon Patricia Forsythe (Sydney Business Chamber)
5. John McInerney (Millers Point/Dawes Point, The Rocks & Walsh
Bay Residents Action Group)
6. Harold Kerr (Highgate Owners Corporation)
7. Prof. Peter Webber
8. Shaun Carter (Australian Institute of Architects Chapter)
9. Simon McGrath
10. Margy Osmond (Tourism & Transport Forum)
11. Jake Thomson (Australian Indigenous Mentoring Experience
AIME)
12. Pen Layton‐Caisley (New speaker registered on the day)
13. Kerry Clare
14. Philip Thalis
15. Chris Johnson (Urban Task Force)
16. Phil Walker
17. Sandra Chipchase (Destination NSW)
18. James Colman
19. Cecile Hunt
20. Peter Mould
21. Phil Gould
22. David Morris (Friends of Sydney Harbour)
23. Steve Whan (Australian Chamber National Tourism Council)
24. Greg Roberts
25. Alan Yuille
END
Appendix 3
Summary of the Public Meeting Comments provided during the public meeting and in written submissions are synthesised and summarised below:
Hickson Park
Replacing the park on the waterfront with a park over the most highly contaminated part of the former gasworks site makes the use as a park vulnerable to a level of contamination
Placement of park away from water is not appropriate
The park will be used by thousands every day
Will be overshadowed
No deep soil planting will be possible, as the site is limited to a thin layer of soil located over an underground car park
The park is just the left over space between the buildings with no clear delineation between public and private
The new park will provide maximum amenity Loss of public space
Loss of public space on waterfront
Should provide more than a walkway along the harbour
There is public interest in maintaining the foreshore park
The 50/50 split of public space is only achieved as they keep redefining what is defined as public space such as inclusion of roads, water, etc
It is trickery to count roads as open space
Counting pier as public open space Amenity of Public Space
Impact on public space due to wind impacts and overshadowing
Promotes both active and passive recreation
Quality of open space has been reduced
Public space connections are severely limited by podium
It is an invasive privatisation of the public foreshore Promenade and privatisation of the foreshore
Foreshore should not be leased for private interest
Lose part of the foreshore to licensed areas
The reduced public walkway width along the foreshore will reduce public access and make it look like the hotel forecourt
The full 30m promenade width should be available for the public Site Selection
Haven’t weighed up site suitability and the public interest
The public should have been engaged in the location selection process
Revitalises the western edge of the CBD
Planning process has not allowed for the investigation of alternate site
Should not be siting a private tower on public RE1 zoned land, the hotel should be relocated within the approved building area of the site
The new placement ensures setback from the foreshore and semi‐ circular cove, more fitting with the water
Relocation must provide more than a walkway and an inner city pocket park Casino
Extreme disapproval of building a Casino on public land
Will provide opportunity for money laundering
The granting of a gaming license did not guarantee the site Wind
Massive wind tunnels
Some areas will only be acceptable for walking by able bodies people
Wind assessment of balconies have not been provided Overall Development
Will be one of the most innovative and viable sites in the world
Land is being transformed from an industrial area to a vibrant one
Barangaroo was to be enjoyed by all, not just the select few
The winning design for Barangaroo in 2007 had community support, this has been eroded as floor space has increased
Views
Increased size of Blocks 4a and 4b will obstruct views, including from Sydney Observatory which has been used since the 19th Century
Gas Lane loses its visual sight lines to the water
View analysis is weak with no critical assessment
No discussion about night time views
Will impact on the Opera House views
Will dominate the skyline and dwarf the Harbour Bridge
Parking
500 new car spaces unnecessary given the public transport options
Melbourne Casino should not be used as a guide for parking as this Casino is open to the public whereas the proposed one is private and for high rollers only
Car parking and car access taking precedent over public amenity
Overshadowing
Shadow cast over the water and across Darling Harbour
In winter shadow will exceed 1km creating a cold barren windswept place
Increased overshadowing impacts
Overshadowed and windy roads Design
Strong bold iconic building – leading to a symbol of modern Sydney
The term icon has been abused and should not be used for this proposed building. A building promoting gambling cannot be considered iconic
Should not be allowed to increase the height by 105m
Development grossly oversized
Should not get landmark status as private building
The proposed will achieve design excellence
Building by architect Chris Wilkinson is world class
Design competition did not follow the State Government rules Podium
Newly provided gap makes no difference
Porte‐cochere is considered active
Apartments
Original design did not have apartments, and they should not be allowed
Department Assessment
No logic in the report for not agreeing with all of BDAP recommendations – including trimming the scale of the podium
Recommended conditions are weak
Report doesn’t use the word public interest
Planning process does not allow for the investigation of alternative sites Barangaroo Design Advisory Panel
All Barangaroo Design Advisory Panel recommendations should be mandated so no further changes are allowed
Why would the Government appoint an expert panel then just ignore it
Did not agree with all of the recommendations
Went outside of their brief Modifications
Barangaroo has a history of modifications which undermine the original concept plan, which is already unrecognisable. The history of the modifications since the initial concept has resulted in a doubling of the gross floor area
Considerations under section 75W have not been met
The proposal is outside the scope of section 75W; it should be a new planning application
Original proposal was for a hotel not a Casino and apartments
Changes have not been in the public interest Cove
Semi‐circle cove more fitting to the foreshore Tourism
Will aid in addressing Sydney’s hotel short fall, it needs an extra 8000 hotel rooms to achieve its target
Unbroken Sydney Harbour walk. One of the world’s great tourist experiences
Will cater for the growing Asian tourist economy
Sydney needs an integrated resort
A six star resort has the capacity to attract high net worth tourists
Need to support tourism infrastructure
Need function centres to attract strong events calendar
Important to supply the luxury Chinese market, Sydney is currently attracting less than 1% of the Chinese market
Need this development to maintain NSW as a great destination
Need active precincts to give people more to do when attending conferences
Need to increase hotel stock and keep it refreshed and prices down, further delay of the project will come close to Sydney putting up the full sign
Proposal is a great addition to the tourism offer in Sydney
Need for an iconic and striking building, this proposal will meet that need providing a strong bold, iconic building – becoming a symbol of modern Sydney
Crown Partnership
Support Australian Indigenous Mentoring Experience (AIME)
Partnership with Crown and Western Sydney. Crown commitment to provide job opportunities for indigenous people
Working with Panthers. Memorandum to build a new training centre in Penrith
Crown training college can provide traineeships and will be similar to the facility at Crown Melbourne
MOU between Crown and Panthers is real training for real jobs Economy
Key economic driver for the city
Site will be 24 hour operation providing for a vibrant night time economy Jobs
Tourism jobs are an entry point for a number of young people
Crown Melbourne has graduated 7,200 apprentices Transport
Will decrease congestion surrounding Wynyard
Will increase congestion in the area
Affordable housing
Not enough provided Signage
Sign shows Sydney is the new hub for serious gambling
Should be the same height as other buildings
Agree with Barangaroo Design Advisory Panel that it should not have any gaudy signs Other
Planning driven by private profit over public gain
Concern short term private benefit trumping long term benefits
Agreements have been made behind closed doors
Question relationship between the developer and Barangaroo Delivery Authority
Needs to be more overall discussion about what type of Sydney we want to have
The Planning Assessment Commission is the last check and balance
Need to represent the future generations and don’t want to be remembered for choosing a Casino over a public park
Controls are responding to the design rather than other way round
Concern for floating heliport
Ferries are located outside of Barangaroo. Lack of ferry access for the development
Ensure harbour is protected from storm runoff and grease traps from restaurants
Parks and shadow to Jones Bay Wharf
Do not believe a building of this size could be energy efficient
Top Related